United States v. Meza

ORDER ON MEZA'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY;
UNITED STATES' MOTIONS IN LIMINE; AND MEZA'S MOTION
IN LIMINE

JEFFREY T. MILLER United States District Judge

Pending
before the court are Defendant David Enrique Meza's
motion to compel discovery, (Doc. No. 120), the
Government's motions in limine, (Doc. No. 129), and
Meza's motion in limine, (Doc. No. 137). The court heard
argument on these motions on March 24, 2017, and this order
addresses each in turn.

Meza's
Motion to Compel Discovery

Meza
moves for discovery of testing and reports done by the
Mexican authorities. Meza argues that both Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 16 and Brady v. Maryland, 373
U.S. 83 (1963), require the Government to turn over this
material. In response, the Government argues that it does not
have possession, custody, or control of the material, and,
furthermore, the United States government cannot compel the
Mexican government to produce it.

At the
March 24 hearing, the Government stated that it had already
made an informal request to Mexican authorities to turn over
the material, if it exists, but had not heard back. At
Meza's behest, the Government represented that it would
make another request in short order. Accordingly, pending
these cooperative efforts, the court defers ruling on this
motion until the scheduled April 7, 2017, status hearing.

Government's
Motions in Limine Regarding Witness Impeachment

The
Government moves to (1) preclude impeachment of Hector
Gonzalez and Isidro Magana with convictions more than ten
years old; (2) limit impeachment of Magana to the fact of
conviction only for a conviction less than ten years old; (3)
preclude impeachment of Gonzalez with uncharged conduct not
probative of truthfulness; and (4) preclude impeachment of
Gonzalez with prior drug use. Meza did not file an opposition
to these motions or argue against them at the hearing. For
the following reasons, the court grants each motion without
prejudice.

Regarding
the Government's first request, Federal Rule of Evidence
609(b)(1) provides that evidence of a conviction more than
ten years old is admissible only if “its probative
value, supported by specific facts and circumstances,
substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect . . . .”
Because Meza did not oppose the motion, there is no argument
before the court that Rule 609(b)(1)'s requirement is met
as to any of the convictions at issue here.

Second,
evidence of Magana's 2013 conviction for assault with a
deadly weapon must come in under Rule 609(a)(1)(A), subject
to Rule 403 balancing. But, as the Government notes,
“absent exceptional circumstances, evidence of a prior
conviction admitted for impeachment purposes may not include
collateral details and circumstances attendant upon the
conviction. Generally, only the prior conviction, its general
nature, and punishment of felony range are fair game for
testing the [witness]'s credibility.” United
States v. Osazuwa, 564 F.3d 1169, 1175 (9th Cir. 2009)
(internal citations omitted). As Meza has not shown that this
is an exceptional circumstance meriting discussion of the
specifics underlying Magana's offense, the court grants
the Government's motion to limit it to the fact of
conviction.

Next,
the Government seeks to exclude certain uncharged conduct
involving Gonzalez. A witness's credibility may be
attacked on cross-examination by inquiring into specific
instances of conduct not resulting in a criminal conviction
only if those instances “are probative of the character
for truthfulness or untruthfulness.” Fed.R.Evid.
608(b). The court finds that these old, uncharged acts are
not probative of Gonzalez's character for truthfulness or
untruthfulness, and discussing them may raise Rule 403
issues. Given this determination, along with the
Government's assertion that “[n]either the United
States nor Mexican authorities have any agreement with
Gonzalez regarding his testimony in this case and any of the
above-cited matters, ” the court precludes reference to
this conduct.

The cases that allow broad cross-examination on the issue of
drug addiction to impeach witnesses are readily
distinguishable. Such cross-examination may be necessary
where defense counsel seeks to impeach narcotics addicts who
are paid government informers with criminal charges pending
against them, or who had criminal charges against them
dropped prior to trial, or where the fact of addiction is
probative of other motivation for testifying, or where the
witness is intoxicated while testifying. The record here
reveals no such bases for allowing cross-examination on drug
addiction. Moreover, there is widespread recognition that
drug addiction is an issue fraught with potential prejudice:
The issue of narcotics use is one that may properly be
handled with some sensitivity lest it result in undue and
unnecessary prejudice. There is an interest in avoiding undue
evidentiary assault on prosecution witnesses. Prejudice may
result if questions asked for the limited purpose of testing,
say, opportunity to observe, are permitted to generate a
hostility based on the general odium of narcotics use.

Id. at 506 (internal citations and quotations
omitted).

Here,
the Government asserts that Gonzalez used drugs nine years
ago. Thus, without any reason to believe that Gonzalez is
currently on and ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.